450 WORDS MINIMUM THREAD Assignments In the chapter "Crime and Punishment" (429-443 in McQuilken and Copan), various alternatives to prison are presented, and a short section deals with "Christian Responsibility for Criminal Justice." Consider the ideas presented in these sections specifically in light of the USA's continuing battle with illegal drug use. (In light of this, also be aware that Michelle Alexander, in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age of Colorblindness [The New Press, 2012], has pointed out that millions of young men are in prison today for minor drug possession offences, or small crimes). Consider the different possibilities and Christian responses in this chapter, and defend, in your initial post, a possible way to deal with minor drug offences that might be more effective than jail terms. You may want to do some internet searching on the matter as well--and if so, include the sources at the bottom of your initial thread. Four Hundred words--minimum (be sure to include the word count ------------------------------------ Below is the pages from the book to use for the assignment. CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (429-443 MCQUILKEN AND COPAN) Crime and Punishment (PAGE 429) A crime is some activity or negligence that a human authority has decided should be punished, usually because it is deemed injurious to others. Crime and sin are not synonymous. Sin is Godward, and not all sin is criminal (lust or pride). And not all crime is sinful (publicly proclaiming Christ in certain societies). Crime and its punishment are determined by a society, presumably for the welfare of its members and hopefully based on objective moral principles. Since crime is against others, it normally violates the biblical law of love and often harms another person. Thus, broadly speaking, it fits under the sixth commandment. The punishment of crime is certainly a life issue—depriving criminals of part or all of their lives as free citizens. But controversy rages as to the cause of crime, the nature of crime, the purpose of punishment, and the kind of punishment a just and merciful society may employ. On these issues the Bible sheds significant light. Philosophical Issues (PAGE 430) The cause of crime. Until the end of the nineteenth century, crime in the West was generally considered the outworking of a sinful disposition. And even where moral implications were disallowed, crime was universally considered an act for which the criminals themselves were responsible. That began to change in the last century with other proposed explanations—physiological, psychological, sociological. Through Freud’s influence, mentally sick persons are not responsible for their behavior. The end result of the general acceptance of this approach was to distinguish between criminals who were normal and thus responsible for their crime and those who were abnormal and needed treatment, not punishment. A legal definition of insanity, determined by the Supreme Court in the ...

1. 450 WORDS MINIMUM THREAD
Assignments
In the chapter "Crime and Punishment" (429-443 in McQuilken
and Copan), various alternatives to prison are presented, and a
short section deals with "Christian Responsibility for Criminal
Justice." Consider the ideas presented in these sections
specifically in light of the USA's continuing battle with illegal
drug use. (In light of this, also be aware that Michelle
Alexander, in The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in an Age
of Colorblindness [The New Press, 2012], has pointed out that
millions of young men are in prison today for minor drug
possession offences, or small crimes). Consider the different
possibilities and Christian responses in this chapter, and defend,
in your initial post, a possible way to deal with minor drug
offences that might be more effective than jail terms. You may
want to do some internet searching on the matter as well--and if
so, include the sources at the bottom of your initial thread. Four
Hundred words--minimum (be sure to include the word count
------------------------------------
Below is the pages from the book to use for the assignment.
CRIME AND PUNISHMENT (429-443 MCQUILKEN AND
COPAN)
Crime and Punishment (PAGE 429)
A crime is some activity or negligence that a human authority
has decided should be punished, usually because it is deemed
injurious to others. Crime and sin are not synonymous. Sin is
Godward, and not all sin is criminal (lust or pride). And not all
crime is sinful (publicly proclaiming Christ in certain

2. societies).
Crime and its punishment are determined by a society,
presumably for the welfare of its members and hopefully based
on objective moral principles. Since crime is against others, it
normally violates the biblical law of love and often harms
another person. Thus, broadly speaking, it fits under the sixth
commandment. The punishment of crime is certainly a life
issue—depriving criminals of part or all of their lives as free
citizens. But controversy rages as to the cause of crime, the
nature of crime, the purpose of punishment, and the kind of
punishment a just and merciful society may employ. On these
issues the Bible sheds significant light.
Philosophical Issues (PAGE 430)
The cause of crime.
Until the end of the nineteenth century, crime in the West was
generally considered the outworking of a sinful disposition. And
even where moral implications were disallowed, crime was
universally considered an act for which the criminals
themselves were responsible. That began to change in the last
century with other proposed explanations—physiological,
psychological, sociological. Through Freud’s influence,
mentally sick persons are not responsible for their behavior.
The end result of the general acceptance of this approach was to
distinguish between criminals who were normal and thus
responsible for their crime and those who were abnormal and
needed treatment, not punishment. A legal definition of
insanity, determined by the Supreme Court in the M’Naghten
Rule (1843), was gradually refined until most courts in the
United States came to rely on the American Law Institute Rule,
which states that “a person is not responsible for criminal
conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental
disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the law.”[1]

3. With the advent of sociology, the line of reason initiated earlier
by psychology has been taken much further. Not just the
mentally ill, but all people are products of their environment—a
point behaviorist B. F. Skinner drove home in his Walden Two.
So the person who commits a crime is not guilty, but the society
(environment) that produced such a person. Famed psychiatrist
Karl Menninger’s book The Crime of Punishment argues that
the crimes committed against criminals are greater than the
crimes they commit.[2] Today, many psychologists challenge
the very concept of mental illness.
Who is to judge which person is abnormal or “ill”? We’ve all
been shaped by our culture, and each person’s behavior is
normal to that person. Thus cultural relativism leads inexorably
to radical personal autonomy and the rejection of all behavioral
norms—a downward spiral that still continues. This viewpoint
increasingly prevails in one form or another and has profound
effects on a society’s view of crime and punishment. Scripture
teaches that environment has a very powerful influence on a
person. Criminals have been strongly influenced by their
environments, and, hopefully, a change of environment might
assist them toward making better choices. But determining what
elements in a person’s environment were most influential and
trying to create an environment that will help a person change
for the better seem very elusive.
Does poverty produce criminal behavior? This is doubtful. For
example, criminal activity in America did not rise during the
Great Depression. The late James Q. Wilson documented how
for decades before 1960, the population grew by the millions,
the murder rate steadily fell, and poverty was declining.
However, after this time, America’s legal system and idea-
shapers began to focus on “root causes” of crime to figure out
why criminals did what they did. In addition, the government
and legal system increased the number of prisoners’ “rights,”
gave lighter sentences, and delayed the execution of convicted
death-row criminals. From 1961 to 1974, the murder rate would
more than double, and employment of non-whites increased.

4. Poverty was certainly not the problem.[3]
Blaming society means abdicating personal responsibility for
the direction of one’s life. And this refusal to own up to one’s
wrongdoing shuts the door to the possibility of salvation by
God’s grace. The Bible is much more realistic (see part three,
“Sin”). It both recognizes the influence of environment (“the
world”) and thus the responsibility of people to create as good
an environment as possible for others as well as for themselves.
It also recognizes the role of responsible choice. Our path to the
proper solution for crime means each person taking
responsibility for his own actions. Crime’s root is sin, and the
final responsibility for crime rests with the sinner. Lack of
discipline or love in the home, failure of justice in society, evil
companions and poor education all may contribute, but in the
final analysis, we sin because we are sinners and choose to
sin—and thus contribute to the deterioration of our character.
Though some blame the courts and the process of criminal
justice for the increase in crime, others blame the educational
system, the violence and sex of television, narcotics, racial
discrimination, and unemployment. We believe the breakdown
of the family is the leading negative environmental influence.
Public education and the media share major responsibility in
eroding virtue and moral duty.
Since environment is a major influence in the formation of
human personality and character, we must work to make it as
just and merciful as humanly possible. At the same time, we
must insist that each person is responsible for her own moral
destiny and is held accountable for any conduct that is injurious
to others.
Nature of crime.(PAGE 431)
While God punishes sin, humans punish crime. Since humans
are not authorized to punish sin, society must wisely determine

5. which sins are criminal and therefore punishable. While it is a
neutral matter that the British drive on the left rather than right
side of the road, a good deal of law has to do with morality.
And by making a matter law, it becomes a moral issue.
What about “private” morality?
Most people would agree that private sins should not be
punished in law courts. But what is “private sin”? Ultimately,
no sin is truly private, since every sin has an adverse effect on
others in the life of the sinner. Consider how men who view
pornography in private are adversely affected in their
(objectified) view of women and intimacy in marriage. Drinking
may be private, but so many homicides and traffic fatalities in
the United States are alcohol related.
To say “you can’t legislate morality” is false. We are grateful
that the government criminalizes rape, murder and child abuse.
But governments should be careful not to over-legislate either.
It seems that all that can be done by law is to hold a person
accountable for unwarranted injury to another’s property or
person or for behavior that might jeopardize another. Because
of this legitimate distinction between sin and crime, a strong
movement has emerged toward decriminalizing “victimless”
crimes—crimes in which there is no complainant. These include
drug use, drunkenness, gambling, vagrancy, prostitution and
pornography. Of course, if all these were decriminalized, a
large portion of the current law enforcement overload would be
eliminated.
Any behavior that a society believes is directly or potentially
injurious to others may be legitimately outlawed. Of course, a
society is responsible to enact only laws that it intends to
enforce and can enforce. Any behavior, private or public,
victimless or not, which a society declares criminal and then
does not enforce undermines the rule of law, promoting a
lawless society.
So the crucial element in lawmaking is not whether an act is

6. private or whether there is a direct victim who complains, but
whether that society judges the behavior to be potentially or
actually injurious to others and whether society has the will to
enforce the legislation.
Purpose of Punishment (PAGE 432)
Rehabilitation.
Whether in the judgment of Israel in the Old Testament or the
discipline of church members in the New, God’s primary
purpose in punishment has always been the restoration of the
sinner. “Have I any pleasure in the death of the wicked, says the
Lord God, and not rather that he should turn from his way and
live?” (Ezek 18:23RSV; cf. 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Tim 1:19-20). So the
position of humanitarian criminologists that rehabilitation is the
purpose of punishment has strong biblical precedent. But
contemporary theory makes rehabilitation virtually the only
valid reason for punishment, and most Western governments
have abandoned such efforts. Moreover, apart from
regeneration, the only factor known to improve the behavior of
criminals is age—moving to mature adulthood, during which
time criminal activity lessens.[4]
Deterrence. A second biblical reason for punishment is to deter
others from doing wrong. “As for those who persist in sin,
rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in
fear” (1 Tim 5:20RSV). Both Testaments indicate that
punishment can serve as a warning to other potential
lawbreakers (Deut 17:12-13; Acts 5:1-11; Rom 13:1-7). Despite
the claim that rehabilitation alone (and not deterrence) is the
purpose of punishment, it seems manifestly clear that
punishment—particularly prompt, consistent punishment—does
deter. Consider police-strike situations when there is little or no
enforcement of criminal law; criminal activity rises sharply.[5]
The penologist Ernest van den Haag emphasizes the deterrent
and quarantine value of imprisonment as over against elusive
rehabilitation. He suggests more severe sentences for second-

7. time offenders committing serious crimes. He advocates not
releasing violent, serial criminals before age forty, since few
people commit violent crimes after age thirty-five.[6]
An additional benefit of incarceration is that letting dangerous
criminals loose is more costly to society than incarcerating
them. For example, in 2008 Britain’s total cost of the prison
system per year was found to be 1.9 billion pounds sterling; in
contrast, the financial cost alone of crimes committed per year
by criminals was approximately 60 billion pounds sterling.[7]
Though there is no consensus as to what actually deters a person
from criminal behavior, there is something of a consensus that
the certainty and swiftness of apprehension and punishment do
deter. But if sure and swift punishment is the greatest deterrent,
our present system can hardly be expected to deter.
Protection of the innocent.(PAGE 433)
A third legitimate purpose of two forms of punishment—
imprisonment and execution—is to protect others from
criminals. Western society seems to increasingly emphasize the
quarantine purpose of imprisonment. While over 95 percent of
present American inmates will be returned to society, around
two-thirds of them will commit further crime.
Scripture is filled with admonitions to protect the innocent and
helpless—the widow, the fatherless, the alien, the weak.
Government is established so that citizens may lead a “quiet and
peaceable life” (1 Tim 2:2 RSV). Therefore, any just society
must create structures to protect its citizens—something our
society is not doing well at present. Prison sentences are short,
early parole the rule, and subsequent crime all but certain.
Restitution is one form of protecting the rights of crime victims
and the state which has gained some attention, thanks to the
work of Prison Fellowship (PF), founded by the late Charles
Colson. This ministry recognizes the vital role of restitution—a

8. concept found in the Mosaic law (e.g., Ex 22:12; Lev 6:2-5;
Num 5:7): criminals pay back the victims(and the government)
for damages done; they should also give back to the community
through various work projects for the benefit of society at large.
Merely “warehousing” prisoners is inadequate. Restitution,
however, affirms the criminal’s dignity and moral responsibility
without minimizing the proper place of punishment. Yet we
should make room for restorative justice. Of course, Prison
Fellowship recognizes the transforming role of the gospel:
prisoners making a commitment to Christ and growing in their
faith while in prison are far less likely to return to crime and
end up back in prison.[8]
Punitive. (PAGE 434)
Retribution is the one purpose almost universally disallowed by
many inside and outside the church; it is considered
“uncivilized” because of its apparent vindictiveness. Yet justice
means giving to a person his due—giving what is deserved. So
we cannot neglect the place of just desert—a vindication of
justice in proportion to the crime committed. Yet, though this is
not the sole reason given in Scripture, the New Testament
clearly identifies the vindication of justice as one basic purpose
of criminal punishment. Government officials are established to
mete out vengeance on evildoers (Rom 13:4: “to execute his
wrath on the wrongdoer” [RSV]; 1 Pet 2:14: “to punish those
who do wrong” [RSV]). In the Old Testament, an “eye for an
eye” (lex talionis) demanded proportionality: the punishment
must fit the crime. Retribution, then, is not revenge, which
springs from personal animosity or hostility.
Once we have abandoned the criterion of desert, C. S. Lewis
said, “all punishments have to be justified, if at all, on other
grounds that have nothing to do with desert.”[9] Moreover,
“when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and
consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have

9. tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether;
instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere
object, a patient, a ‘case.’”[10] Therapy or rehabilitation should
not be a substitute for justice: “How can you pardon a man for
having a gumboil or a club foot?”[11] Furthermore, granting
pardon or mercy implies guilt and desert: “Mercy, detached
from Justice, grows unmerciful. . . . Mercy will flower only
when it grows in the crannies of the rock of Justice.”[12]
All four purposes of punishment for crime are biblically valid
and should be emphasized in law and criminal justice. The
biblical order of priority in emphasis is probably (1)
rehabilitation, (2) justice, (3) protection of the innocent and (4)
deterrence.
Varieties of Punishment (PAGE 435)
Good law versus bad law.
In general good law reinforces moral standards, and bad law
weakens moral standards. There are many ways to create bad
law or systems of justice.
Unenforceable law (or laws that society does not choose to
enforce, such as America’s Prohibition) is bad because non
enforcement undermines respect for the law and promotes
corruption among the citizenry and law enforcement officials.
Unjust law comes in many forms. It is unjust to accept hearsay
evidence or to convict without adequate evidence. It is unjust to
subject a victim of sexual assault or child abuse to repeated
emotional and mental assault, shame, and intimidation in the
courtroom. One pervasive form of injustice in our present
system is that the poor and those without friends in high places
do not have adequate legal representation as the wealthy who
know how to work the system. What of a law requiring a prison
sentence for shoplifting fifty dollars’ worth of merchandise
while there is no law to keep the owner of the chain store from
unjustly depriving the government of hundreds of thousands of
dollars in income tax.

10. Inappropriate or unequal punishment is another kind of bad law.
For instance, while ordinary criminals may receive harsh
penalties, media or music celebrities often get their wrists
slapped. But such disproportionate penalties regularly extend
beyond this demographic. In October 1964 in Sicily, Gaetano
Furnari killed a college professor who had seduced his
daughter; in Manila a Chinese businessman was apprehended for
kissing his Filipino secretary five years earlier. The murderer
and the kisser were both given four years in prison. At about the
same time, I (Robertson) read in a Tokyo newspaper the story of
some young men who got drunk, captured a swan from the
imperial palace moat, roasted the swan, and were given four
years in prison. Buried in an inside column of the same paper
was the brief report of a young mother who deliberately
drowned her infant in a cesspool; she was given a two-year
sentence, suspended. Good law and good law enforcement must
be equitable and appropriate to the crime. In protecting the
innocent, good law does not make an unwarranted infringement
on the rights and freedoms of others. This delicate balance is
difficult but is the object of good law.
Nonpunishment. Is it always wrong for society not to punish a
crime? Apparently not, since crimes went unpunished in the
annals of Scripture. Although God severely judged the
household of the wife-stealing, murderous king David, David
himself was not punished according to the Mosaic law—
although death came to his family as a result (2 Sam 12:10). In
Hosea, Gomer the harlot is not executed—although she would
serve as an illustration of rebellious Israel in the face of divine,
wooing love. Paul was a persecutor of the church but would
become an apostle of Christ. This does not mean that crime
should be overlooked or that criminal justice should be
subverted; Scripture is abundantly clear on that. But it does
mean that mercy and forgiveness may sometimes be legitimate
without violating justice, but mercy can only make sense in the
context of justice.

11. Alternatives to imprisonment.(PAGE 436)
The American system of imprisonment is the primary sanction
against crime, whereas in Scripture it was not mandated for that
purpose. The prison system has utterly failed in three of the
four purposes of punishment. It only functions well as a just
form of punishment; retributive justice is served—although,
insofar as criminals are behind bars, they will not be a danger to
the public (protection of the innocent). And despite rampant
violence, corruption, drugs and homosexual activity in our
prisons, we see no serious attempts at prison reform. Are there
any viable alternatives?
Deprivation of privilege is a common form of punishment,
whether relatively light (loss of a driver’s license or right to
vote) or severe (losing one’s license to practice medicine or
law). Perhaps there are other creative ways to match the crime
with appropriate deprivation of something of value other than
freedom to live in normal society.
Corporal punishment is unlikely to be acceptable any time soon
in Western society. Banishment, or exile, formerly common,
also has fallen out of favor except in the deportation of criminal
aliens. It would seem less cruel than the typical prison
environment, but that would depend largely on the place of
exile. Military service is used in some societies as a form of
punishment. None of these could be ruled out on biblical
grounds, but none is likely to be acceptable in America today.
There is one present form of punishment that could be greatly
expanded—the monetary fine or expropriation of property. The
convicted criminal could be required to pay a stipulated amount
to the victim and to the government (for costs of apprehension
and prosecution) in monthly installments if necessary. This
could be restricted to the 75 percent of the prison population
who are not guilty of violent crimes. Supervising such a

12. program would be a fraction of the cost of incarceration, and
the victim would have some hope of restitution for the loss
suffered. A by-product would be to keep first offenders from the
prison “schoolhouse in crime” and the brutalizing effect of
prison.
Other alternatives would be a community service assignment or
an assignment to serve or care for the victim in some way.
These might be especially appropriate for juvenile offenders,
many of whom are guilty of truancy, incorrigibility and other
offenses that would not be punishable as an adult criminal.
These juveniles crowd the system and are society’s greatest
loss. Surely a society with creativity sufficient to put a person
on the moon need not settle for a failed system of punishment
here on earth.
Capital Punishment
There are two prevailing views on what Scripture teaches about
executing convicted capital offenders: those who advocate
abolition of capital punishment and those who advocate capital
punishment for premeditated homicide.
Abolition of capital punishment.(PAGE 437)
Britain abolished the death penalty in December 1969, and a
number of other nations have followed. In the United States,
only seventeen states and the District of Columbia outlaw
capital punishment. The Old Testament permits capital
punishment for certain crimes. Scholarly debate whether all
sixteen or so crimes would have been capitally punished, apart
from, say, murder or idolatry. Instead, monetary payment would
have been utilized. Passages advancing the death penalty for
sabbath-breaking or rebelling against parents were likely
viewed as maximum penalties to present a tone of severity, even
though judges would typically have opted for lesser penalties

13. (cf. Ex 21:30).[13] For example, the “indecency” (Deut 24:1-4)
as grounds for divorce includes adultery, but in this case, the
death penalty is not mandated.
Now, no biblical scholar assumes that contemporary societies
should put to death an idolater. The Mosaic law was not
intended to be universally applied. Further, biblical advocates
of abolition hold that the teaching of Christ deliberately set
aside capital punishment. Did not Jesus set aside the Old
Testament’s lex talionis (Ex 21:23-25), the eye-for-an-eye
demand for equivalent retribution (Mt 5:38-42)? He emphasizes
that divorce—not death—for adultery is morally permissible
(Mt 5:31-32; 19:9). For sexual immorality in Corinth, Paul
mentions excommunication as the penalty (1 Cor 5).
Doesn’t the New Testament’s law of love rule out capital
punishment? How can one love the one he is executing? Isn’t
this the very opposite of being pro-life?
Death penalty for premeditated homicide.(PAGE 438)
Though some advocates of capital punishment hold that the
death penalty should be applied in cases of rape and treason,
most who write on the subject speak primarily of murder as the
one capital offense. Some advocate that capital punishment
should be reserved for the most heinous kinds of murder—say,
mass murder or genocidal acts such as in Rwanda or the former
Yugoslavia. Various scholars will point to a more universalizing
text like Genesis 9:6 to legitimize capital punishment:
“Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be
shed” (RSV).
Others will suggest that this is a proverb—much like Jesus’
statement that those who take up the sword will perish by the
sword (Mt 26:52); that is, violence and bloodshed lead to more

14. of the same. However, Genesis text continues: “for in the image
of God has God made man.” The text more likely indicates
something more than proverbial—namely, to the legitimacy of
capital punishment as an adequate retribution for violating the
divine image. Though the structure of the Hebrew could either
be a statement of fact or a command, biblical scholars generally
hold that a command was intended.
Advocates hold that the New Testament also is clear. Jesus
seems to assume capital punishment (cf. Mt 15:4). And as we
noted, Paul’s instruction on civil authority (Rom 13:4) speaks
of the sword not merely as a symbol of authority or even
imprisonment—the use of “avenger” and “wrath” would not fit
here—but as a symbol of the specific authority to execute.
Can executing a criminal be done in love? It seems so—as with
the same reluctant love that God shows in letting sinners go
their way and separate themselves from God. Certainly, those
with the heavy responsibility to take a human life should do so
in light of strong evidence—and with reluctance and sorrow
rather than pleasure. And criminals on death row have an
uncommon opportunity to know in advance the time of their
death and to repent and prepare to meet their Maker.
Does capital punishment deter more than other punishment? The
question is hotly debated. The criminal underworld certainly
thinks it deters and so applies the principle ruthlessly. The
deterrent value, if any, is greatly reduced because few expect to
meet such a fate. Even when capital punishment was in full
force in the United States, fewer than 1 percent of murderers
were executed. Furthermore, the majority of murders are crimes
of passion—family members or close acquaintances. Of course,
those who forfeit their lives will not kill again; obviously, this
would deter them from committing any future crimes.
To some degree, the threat of capital punishment can have a
sobering effect on would-be perpetrators (Deut 17:12-13; cf.
Acts 5:11). Yet deterrent value is the least important

15. consideration when it comes to biblical reasons for punishment.
Conclusion. (PAGE 439)
Our personal conclusion is a mediating one. Capital punishment
cannot be inherently immoral because God mandates this for
universal application (Gen 9:6). On the other hand, God himself
did not insist on it, either for the first murderer, Cain, or for the
most prominent, David. Therefore, it cannot be wrong to show
mercy, although mercy cannot be properly understood without
first grasping justice and desert. In the light of this biblical
tension, it seems to us that the death penalty should be viewed
more as a prerogative of human government than as a mandate.
Therefore, for capital punishment to be properly appropriated, it
should not be carried out when gross social injustices have not
been eliminated. By “injustices,” we mean, for example, the
former pattern in America in which 50 percent of those executed
between 1930 and 1967 were black. Black killing of a white
brought almost certain death, white killing of a black almost
never. Furthermore, executions were reserved primarily for the
poor and ignorant who could not afford adequate representation
or did not understand how to seek assistance. Often they were
mentally retarded, almost always poorly educated.
Another form of injustice, mistaken execution of the innocent,
has been overemphasized. The most liberal estimates of all
varieties of crime in which innocent persons have been
convicted is up to 5 percent. In capital cases, where no expense
is spared and no avenue of defense is unprobed, such error is
highly unlikely, but in the rare instance when it may occur, one
is faced with the alternative of what the lack of this sanction
may do in a society. As much as the naturalistic humanitarian
might protest, extension of physical life is not the ultimate
value. Further, lifelong imprisonment as opposed to the death

16. penalty is itself a serious deprivation and loss. Also, simply
because governments have divine authority to capitally execute
(Rom 13:4), the expectation is that they will be pursuing justice
rather than violating it. For example, Pilate did wrong in
allowing Jesus to be killed (Jn 18:38; Acts 3:13-17); Stephen
was unjustly stoned (Acts 7). Indeed, there are times when God
must be obeyed over against human authorities (Acts 5:29).
Some complain that capital punishment unfairly discriminates
against, say, blacks and minorities or the poor. As we noted
earlier, we should distinguish between punishment and actual
crimes committed. Sadly, 94 percent of black murders are
committed by other blacks, who are responsible for 50 percent
of all homicides in America, though they represent 13 percent
of the population. The charge of unfair discrimination deals
with the law’s unjust application— not with capital punishment
itself. In general, we don’t abolish laws simply because they are
unequally applied. For example, a police officer may, for
whatever reason, be inconsistent in stopping only some
speeding drivers or stopping speeding drivers at some times but
not at others.
In summary, if capital punishment is part of a reasonably just
system and is used only in cases of premeditated murder with no
mitigating factors and certain evidence, it would probably
enhance the value of life and the fabric of justice in a society.
But if it is invoked capriciously or in unjust ways, it would be
better to set aside this God-given prerogative of human
government.
Christian Responsibility for Criminal Justice
What can the individual Christian and the church do toward
promoting a just and merciful society, other than by being just
and merciful and teaching God’s standards?
Rehabilitation. Although this is considered by many to be the
primary purpose of punishment, there is a growing consensus
that our present system works directly opposite. And here the

17. church and individual Christians must do all within their power
to promote the one thing that can rehabilitate—regeneration. To
persuade individuals to take responsibility for their own failures
is the first step. But more is needed—to know of God’s
forgiving grace, to become a new creation, to have a caring
family of God, especially after their release. This is the kind of
work that Prison Fellowship does, and its volunteers participate
in friendship, mentoring, Bible study, care for prisoners’
families. Its late founder, Charles Colson, was the former chief
counsel under Richard Nixon. He was convicted and imprisoned
for his involvement in the Watergate break-in, but became a
believer in Christ. Perhaps Colson has helped to show us the
way to obey Christ’s injunction to visit those in prison (Mt
25:36, 39, 43-45). It is dreadful to note what Christ promised
those who fail to visit prisoners. Christians actually hold the
only proven key to transforming criminals and making them
good citizens—of earth and heaven!
Punishment.(PAGE 442)
If we insist that retributive justice must be restored as a primary
purpose in criminal punishment, we must work hard toward a
more just system of criminal justice. As citizens in a democracy
we cannot sit by and shout “law and order”—or “lock them up
and throw away the key.” We must listen carefully to prisoners
and prison staff, scrutinize the system and, where necessary,
insist on improved laws and their enforcement. While prisons
partially fulfill the retributive purpose of punishment, our
system does not, in that most crime goes unpunished. We must
work toward the justice of consistent apprehension as well as
justice in sentencing and punishment.
Protection of the innocent.
Fewer and fewer Americans are willing to take the risk of
personal involvement in reporting crime. The Christian must act
in love for the innocent by stopping crime through direct action,

18. at least by reporting all crime or suspicious activity. It may
prove costly, but that is what love is all about. This action is the
loving response toward the criminal as well. Criminals need to
be protected from accumulating ever greater guilt and to have
opportunity for enforced reflection on their wicked ways and
their certain end.
More stringent pretrial qualifications of bail/bond release,
longer prison terms and less parole may protect society in about
25 percent of the cases. But upwards of 75 percent of convicted
criminals could be punished in alternative ways at no risk of
violence. We may need to redirect some of our very limited
resources in criminal justice.
Deterrence. Deterrence depends, we are told, not on the severity
of the threatened punishment so much as on the certainty and
swiftness of apprehension and punishment. Solomon agreed
(Eccles 8:11). Private citizens can assist in making
apprehension more swift and certain by reporting crime or
suspicious activity, but they can also contribute through
advocating legal and fiscal reform. For example, more tax
revenues could be allotted to criminal justice efforts, such as
the development of alternative systems of punishment. This
would not only reduce the overcrowded condition of prisons
(which contributes to their failure), but would also make room
for the enormous backlog of pending cases, which, as much as
anything else, works toward long delays in prosecution and a
tendency toward a light sentence and early release.
But the greatest contribution the Christian and the church can
make toward deterrence is to faithfully teach God’s holy
standards and God’s holy judgment.
Further Reading
Lewis, C. S. “The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment,” in God
in the Dock. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1970.
Van Ness, Daniel, and Charles Colson. Crime and Its Victims:
What We Can Do. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1986.

19. Wilson, James Q ., and Richard J. Herrnstein. Crime and Human
Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985. [Robertson
McQuilkin (2017). (p. 443). An Introduction to Biblical Ethics:
Walking in the Way of Wisdom. Retrieved from
https://app.wordsearchbible.com]
RUNNING HEAD:CRIMINAL DRUG OFFENSE1
CRIMINAL DRUG OFFENSE 2
In the United States, drug distribution has been in operation
ever since 1989. People are declared a felon and a criminal just
by minor drug offenses. A person could be sent to jail in some
states for simple possession of marijuana. Even for the minor
drug offenses like keeping marijuana for your own use can end
up in jail time and a hefty fine. For example, in the state of
Pennsylvania, the law states that a person who is found keeping
marijuana just enough for personal use and it is his first offense
still faces 30 days in prison and $500 in fine (Desert Hope,
2020). Such extreme jail time can often lead to the destruction
of the person’s entire life and being labeled as a criminal
offender in the eyes of laws. This offense will prevent him from
obtaining better employment and moving forward with his life.
There has been a lot of statistical analysis and research that
shows that sending people to jail for minor drug offenses does
more harm than good. It has been concluded that most of the
time, people who are arrested for minor drug offenses are found
to have more mental illness than they have criminal tendencies.
A person who has a mental illness can be a victim of drug
abuse. Such a person needs help and guidance to fight his
addiction to drugs (Moore, 2011). He does not need jail time.
Be incarcerated will only increase his negative drug tendencies
and will not help in improving his mental health.

20. The best solution to this criminal drug offenses would be to
send such offenders to a rehabilitation center rather than
imposing judgement upon them. Experts say that after spending
Forty days in a rehabilitation center can tell whether the person
is equipped with doing criminal offenses furthermore in the
future or not. There is a very high chance that people who are
arrested for a minor drug case as their first offense is more
likely to be suffering from mental illness rather than to turn out
a criminal.
Christianity teaches human beings to be kind and just with each
other (O'Hanlon, 2008). Sending people to jail because of minor
offenses is a tragedy before the eyes of Christianity. Many
Christians worry about the welfare of the prisoners in jail. They
believe that they are not getting proper care in jail. Christians
believe in forgiveness rather than punishment. Christians also
believe in helping addicts rather than to punish them in a way
that will just increase their addiction.
References:
Desert Hope. (2020, January 21). The Comprehensive Guide to
Drug Possession Laws. Retrieved from Desert Hope Treatment:
https://deserthopetreatment.com/addiction-guide/drug-laws-
regulations/
Moore, M. S. (2011, March 23). A SMARTER WAY TO DEAL
WITH DRUG OFFENDERS. Retrieved from Pacific Standard:
https://psmag.com/news/a-smarter-way-to-deal-with-drug-
offenders-29371
O'Hanlon, G. (2008, July 02). Crime and Punishment: A
Christian Perspective. Retrieved from WorkingNotes:
https://www.workingnotes.ie/item/crime-and-punishment-a-
christian-perspective

21. PACO 500
Solution
-based Short-term Pastoral Counseling (SbStPC) Handout
[All Website Links were last reviewed 10/31/2019]
Note: In order to satisfactorily complete Meaning-Making
Forums 1-4, remain closely connected to this handout, required
readings, lectures, and previous learning activities. For future
reference, journal on this handout as you engage subject matter.
Aim to become very familiar with all content and websites as
soon as possible. You are expected to draw upon this framework
and integrate pertinent insights from ALL required course
materials into each thread (see Course Schedule and Meaning-
Making Forum Guidelines & Rubric).
All of PACO 500’s readings and learning activities attempt to
provide language and skills for becoming an effective and
efficient people-helper. As a required resource, this handout
provides a rationale for using SbStPC along with an overview of
its counseling process and skills for developing related
competencies.
1. In what ways does a solution-based, short-term strategy

22. become a value-added to a student-minister’s counseling
experience?
· SbStPC uses a collaborative methodology to align with God’s
intentions (Kollar, 2011, p. 57). In the process of
understanding the problem/issue affecting the care-seeker’s life,
the student-counselor will come to realize that s/he is not the
game-changer. Instead, the collaborative relationship (i.e., the
counselor, counselee, Word of God, and Wonderful Counselor)
utilized empowers “relocation” (i.e., a purposeful process of
moving from where one is to where one needs to be under the
dominion and direction of a well-defined guiding purpose
statement; Rice, 2005).
· In no fashion is a problem or issue ignored or minimized; in
fact, the opposite is true. Problem description requires
teamwork. Kollar (2011) identifies the action of problem
description, goal formulation, and vision clarification as a co-
creative methodology between the Holy Spirit, counselor, and
counselee (p. 57).
· In the first phase of the counseling process, the student-
counselor is prompted to actively listen to the Holy Spirit and
counselee. This timely partnership enhances the counselor’s
ability to understand the problem being described. That is, to
“get” what it is, when it is most often and least often present,
and how it threatens who or what is important to the care-
seeker.

23. · When a problem is satisfactorily understood, a goal/solution
may be collaboratively developed along with a describable,
measurable, and repeatable plan of action to move out and away
from the problem.
· The SbStPC process does not assume the care-seeker can move
toward the goal alone. Upon finding the keys to solution, effort
is made to identify and secure partners to support care-seeker’s
forward progress.
· Unlike problem-focused approaches which require more time,
SbStPC manages the counseling process effectively and
efficiently with its brief (e.g., 3–5 sessions), time-limited (e.g.,
50–90-minute time frame per session), focused (e.g.,
identifiable phases within the counseling process; see “Hawkins
Analysis Grid” and “Core Competency Two: Developing Your
Style to Connect with People” – Ch.3 in Dr. Younce’s
dissertation below) boundaries.
· SbStPC challenges the student-minister to rethink existing
paradigms and to value each care-seeker as a fellow image-
bearer. This reflection often cultivates the essential
interpersonal skills (i.e., empathetic, considerate, authentic) to
flex with a care-seeker’s fallen-ness without compromising
truth and grace.
· As with any effective people-helping strategy, a significant
emphasis is placed on interpersonal skill development. SbStPC
learning activities provide students with language to discuss

24. what makes them tick and become ticked off. Gaining language
to describe human behavior, along with corresponding people-
helping skills, facilitates rapport building and cultivates a
context for change.
· SbStPC challenges each student-minister to operate under the
authority of the Word of God, in the power of the Holy Spirit,
within a community of accountability for the purpose of
intentionally pursing the imitation of Christ and moving others
toward faith in and imitation of Christ.
· Take this discussion further and review a fellow Liberty
University student’s doctoral dissertation which captured much
of SbStPC’s competency based approach:
The Significance of Developing Core Counseling Competencies
in Pastoral Care Ministry
2. Are we to assume that similar theoretical monikers such as
solution-focused brief therapy and Kollar’s (2011) solution-
focused pastoral counseling are just different names for this
course’s